There is No Right to Concealed Carry – 9th Circuit Denies Full Court Petitions

At 1:24:41 PM PDT on August 15, 2016, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Thomas issued the following Order in the combined concealed carry cases of Peruta v. San Diego and Richards v. Prieto:

Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS) The full court was advised of appellants petitions for full court en banc rehearing (Docket Entry Nos. [334] and [335]). A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc by the full court. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of full court en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35. Accordingly, the petitions for full court en banc rehearing (Docket Entry Nos. [334] and [335]) are denied. In No. 10-56971, appellants motion for leave to file a reply brief (Docket Entry No. [344]) is denied as moot.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Thomas. (Photo: public domain, prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government, Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code)

On June 9, 2016, an eleven judge (limited) en banc panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals published a decision in these two concealed carry cases which held that there is no right under the Second Amendment to carry weapons concealed in public. The Court also held that it was not deciding whether or not there is a right to openly carry firearms in public (Open Carry) because that question was not before the Court. The plaintiffs in both cases argued that states can ban Open Carry and require that handguns be carried concealed, conditional upon government issued permission slips.

Not a single judge filed a dissent to the Order denying the Full Court petitions which speaks volumes in regards to just how stupid the legal arguments made by the plaintiffs in these two concealed carry cases are.

The plaintiffs position conflicts with four US Supreme Court decisions and nearly 500 years of English court decisions leading up to the American Revolution and conflicts with American court decisions and laws which held that there is no right to concealed carry right up to the present day.

This will leave my California Open Carry case, Nichols v. Brown, as the last one standing because I argued that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment and I disavowed any challenge, or desire, to carry a weapon concealed, or to carry a firearm in any sensitive place such as a school or government building. Mine is a pure Open Carry case.

The Peruta v. San Diego lawsuit, backed by the NRA and its state organization the CRPA, and the Richards v. Prieto lawsuit backed by the SAF and CalGuns.nuts have no recourse but to file a cert petition with the United States Supreme Court within the next 90 days.

Their petitions will be denied because this decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals does not conflict with any other Federal Circuit and it does not conflict with any state high court decision.

No Right to Concealed Carry, Next Case, Open Carry

However, if I were to lose my Open Carry appeal my loss would create multiple conflicts (splits) with both Federal Circuit and state supreme courts making my loss a perfect candidate for US Supreme Court review.

The judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals know this which is another reason why I will very likely prevail before the Court of Appeals leaving the State of California to file a cert petition which will be denied because the loss by the State of California will not create a single Federal Circuit split or conflict with any state supreme court decision.

Links to the decision and the petitions for a Full Court rehearing can be found here.

Charles Nichols is a proponent of open carry. In 2011, he filed a Federal Civil Rights lawsuit seeking to overturn California’s 1967 ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public for the purpose of lawful self-defense. Oral argument in his case took place on February 15, 2018, before a three-judge panel of the 9th circuit court of appeals. Charles follows court cases relating to The Second Amendment and tells us what they really mean instead of what reporters, who have never read the decisions in the cases, say they mean.